Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Tej Kiran Jain and Ors Vs N Sanjiva Reddy and Ors

    Uploaded by

    aatharva919

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tej Kiran Jain and Ors Vs N Sanjiva Reddy and Ors

    Uploaded by

    aatharva919
    10 views3 pages

    Original Title

    Tej_Kiran_Jain_and_Ors_vs_N_Sanjiva_Reddy_and_Ors_

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    10 views3 pages

    Tej Kiran Jain and Ors Vs N Sanjiva Reddy and Ors

    Uploaded by

    aatharva919

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    MANU/SC/0068/1970Equivalent Citation: AIR1970SC1573, (1970)2SCC272,

    [1971]1SCR612
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Civil Appeal No. 2572 of 1969
    Decided On: 08.05.1970
    Appellants:Tej Kiran Jain and Ors.
    Vs.
    Respondent:N. Sanjiva Reddy and Ors.
    Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
    M. Hidayatullah, C.J., A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, I.D. Dua, J.C. Shah and K.S. Hegde, JJ.
    Counsels:
    For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P.N. Lekhi and K.B. Rohatgi. Advs
    For Respondents/Defendant: Niren De, Attorney-General , L.M. Singhvi, R.H. Dhebar,
    and S.P. Nayar. Advs.
    JUDGMENT
    M. Hidayatullah, C.J.
    1. This is an appeal from the order, August 4, 1969, of a Full Bench of the High Court
    of Delhi, rejecting a plaint filed by the six appellants claiming a decree for Rs. 26,000
    as damages for defamatory statements made by Shri Sanjiva Reddy (former Speaker of
    the Lok Sabha), Shri Y.B. Chavan (Home Minister) and three members of Parliament on
    the floor of the Lok Sabha during a Calling Attention Motion. The High Court held that
    no proceedings could be taken in a court of law in respect of what was said on the floor
    of Parliament in view of Article 105(2) of the Constitution. The High Court, however,
    certified the case as fit for appeal to this Court under Article 133(1)(a) of the
    Constitution and this appeal has been brought.
    2. Notice of the lodgment of the appeal was issued to the respondents in due course but
    they have not appeared. The Union Government which joined, at its request, as a party
    in the High Court alone appeared through the Attorney General. We have not considered
    it necessary to hear the Union Government.
    3 . The facts of the case, in so far as they are relevant to our purpose, may briefly
    stated. The appellants claim to be the admirers and followers of Jagadguru
    Shankaracharya of Goverdan Peeth, Puri. in March, 1969 a World Hindu Religious
    Conference was held at Patna. The Shankaracharya took part in it and is reported to
    have observed that untouchability was in harmony with the tenets of Hinduism and that
    no law could stand in its way "and to have walked out when the National Anthem was
    played.
    4. On April 2, 1969 Shri Narendra Kumar Salve, M.P. (Detul) moved a Calling Attention
    Motion in the Lok Sabha and gave particulars of the happening. A discussion followed
    and the respondents execrated the Shankaracharya. According to the appellants, the
    respondents
    gave themselves upto the use of language which was more common place than

    21-02-2023 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com SVKM's NMIMS University


    serious, more lax than dignified, more unparliamentary than sober and jokes
    and puns were bandied around the playful spree, and His Holiness Jagadguru
    Shankracharya Ananta Shri Vibushit Swami Shri Niranjan Deva Teertha of
    Goverdhan Peeth, Puri, was made to appear as a leprous (Sic) dog.
    The appellants who hold the Shankaracharya in high esteem felt scandalised and
    brought the action for damages placing the damages at Rs. 26,000.... The plaint was
    rejected as the High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
    5. Article 105 of the Constitution, which defines the powers, privileges and immunities
    of Parliament and its Members, provides :
    105 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and
    standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom
    of speech in Parliament.
    (2) No Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in
    respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any
    committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication
    by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper,
    votes or proceedings.
    (3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of
    Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be
    such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so
    defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the
    United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, and at the
    commencement of this Constitution.
    (4) The provisions of Clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons
    who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to
    take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any Committee thereof
    as they apply in relation to members of Parliament.
    6. The High Court held that in view of Clause (2) of the Article no proceedings could lie
    in any court in respect of what was said by the respondents in Parliament and the plaint
    must, therefore, be rejected.
    7. Mr. Lekhi in arguing this appeal drew our attention to an observation of this Court in
    Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 [1965] 1 S.C.R. 413, where this Court dealing with the
    provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution pointed out that the immunity under that
    Article was against an alleged irregularity of procedure but not against an illegality, and
    contended that the same principle should be applied here to determine whether what
    was said was outside the discussion on a Calling Attention Motion. According to him the
    immunity granted by the second clause of the one hundred and fifth article was to what
    was relevant to the business of Parliament and not to something which was utterly
    irrelevant.
    8 . In our judgment it is not possible to read the provisions of the article in the way
    suggested. The article means what it says in language which could not be plainer. The
    article confers immunity inter alia in respect of 'anything said...in Parliament". The word
    'anything' is of the widest import and is equivalent to 'everything'. The only limitation
    arises from the words 'in Parliament' which means during the sitting of Parliament and
    in the course of the business of Parliament. We are concerned only with speeches in Lok

    21-02-2023 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com SVKM's NMIMS University


    Sabha. Once it was proved that Parliament was sitting and its business was being
    transacted, anything said during the course of that business was immune from
    proceedings in any court. This immunity is not only complete but is as it should be. It is
    of the essence of parliamentary system of Government that people's representatives
    should be free to express themselves without fear of legal consequences. What they say
    is only subject to the discipline of the rules of Parliament, the good sense of the
    members and the control of proceedings by the Speaker. The courts have no say in the
    matter and should really have none.
    9 . Mr. Lekhi attempted to base arguments upon the analogy of an Irish case and
    another from Massachusetts reported in May's Parliamentary Practice. In view of the
    clear provisions of our Constitution we are not required to act OR analogies of other
    legislative bodies. The decision under appeal was thus correct. The appeal fails and is
    dismissed but there shall be no order about costs.
    10. Before we leave the case we wish to refer to the notice of the lodgment of the
    appeal. The suit was for Rs. 26,000 and the certificate was granted under Article 133 of
    the Constitution by the High Court. Under the Rules of this Court an appeal has to be
    lodged after the certificate is granted and a notice of lodgment of the appeal is taken
    out by the appellants to inform the respondents so that they may take action considered
    appropriate or necessary. After service of notice this Court treats the appeal as properly
    lodged and can proceed to hear it when time can be found for hearing. Without the
    notice the case cannot be brought to a hearing. The notice which is issued is not a
    summons to appear before the Court. It is only an intimation of the fact of the lodgment
    of the appeal. It is for the party informed to choose whether to appear or not.
    Summonses issue to defendants, to witnesses and to persons against whom complaints
    are filed in a criminal court. If a summons issues to a defendant and he does not appear
    the court may take the action to be undefended and proceeding ex parte may even
    regard the claim of the plaintiff to be admitted. This consequence does not flow from
    the notice of the lodgment of the appeal in this Court. The Court has to proceed with
    the appeal albeit ex parte against The absent respondent. If a summons is issued to a
    witness or to a person complained against under the law relating to crimes, and the
    witness or the person summoned remains absent after service a warrant for his arrest
    may issue. We hope that these remarks will serve to explain the true position.

    © Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

    21-02-2023 (Page 3 of 3) www.manupatra.com SVKM's NMIMS University

    You might also like